Posted on 12/08/2019 6:52:01 AM PST by mplc51
This only works by impugning the thought crime. There is no hard evidence that the president thought about breaking the law. His stream of consciousness speech pattern leads us to believe such thoughts never entered his mind.
The time is coming when though you may not do prison time for robbing a bank, you will surely do prison time and a lot of it from having unkind thoughts concerning homosexuals and/or muslims.
Trump’s real crime is not being a Progressive Liberal Leftist. . . Had he given them what they wanted, they would have left him alone. Of course, what they wanted started with President Hillary.
I remember Jimmy Carter...and his little lecture on sin....he thought it....is no different than doing it.
But she didn’t ‘intend’ to lie..
I intended to buy my wife a new diamond for our anniversary but didn’t. So far she hasn’t thanked me for it but I’m sure she will.
Correction. Te democrats are impugning Trump’s thoughts, of which they have only inferential knowledge.
Please send that observation (so true) to the Whitehouse.
“he meant to, and therefore they must impeach”
even this is giving the rats too much credit. It implies they believe in their hearts Trump intended to do something so they are acting like someone who stopped someone plotting to carry out a crime so they protecting the Nation. Well that is BS. This is just plan B since Mueller failed. The rats motive is destroy Trump whatever it takes, period.
But she did lie about committing the crime so that makes it OK for the libs.
Short version:
Republicans: GUILTY!
Democrats: NOT GUILTY!
End of lesson.
> The House Judiciary Report is stating that the President can be impeached for motives without breaking the law <
And that statement is absolutely correct. The Constitution gives the House complete power in this matter. They can define the “crime” any old way they want. So yes, the “crime” could just be something motive-based.
And that’s what the Founders intended. Heck, even Benjamin Franklin said a president could be impeached just for being rude.
Side note: Just because the House can impeach doesn’t mean they must impeach. In Trump’s case, impeachment is being driving by raw politics, and not by what’s best for the country. I felt that same way about Clinton’s impeachment, by the way.
“If, as a side effect, Trump’s own personal self-interests were furthered...”
How is it possible that Trump’s own personal self-interests could be furthered in attempting to protect from corrupt application taxpayer money appropriated for Ukraine?
Which law exactly do they claim he thought about breaking?
Were these laws that the Dems “thought about” having? Was it:
1) No President shall conduct foreign policy except as a bureaucrat puppet?
2) No President shall use leverage to force foreign aid recipients not to steal the aid?
3) No President shall investigate sale of office by corrupt Democrats running for office?
4) No President shall touch the permanent bureaucracy that thinks it rules?
5) No President can have a private representative defending him by finding out what the Deep State has done?
6) No President shall make snarky remarks about witnesses that are trying to destroy him with BS and lies?
The Dems have the motive to unseat the presidenc therefor they’re guilty of sedition even though they didn’t do anything but have motive.
Hillary broke the law and fully intended to and the FIBbers cut her loose
Oddly, I basically agree with this position. Technically, as has been stated on FR a thousand times, Congress - the House specifically - can impeach the president for no other reason other than political opposition. That's why the proglibs keep pointing to Hamilton's Federalist paper #81. Granted, he was arguing against this very action by pointing out the dangers involved - mainly involving factions and enflaming pubic passions - but those were warnings, not prohibitions.
So, if impeachment is technically available as a political tool, how come it hasn't been used in this manner before? Well, with 100m gun owners, technically, any of them can shoot themselves and/or anyone else - the danger is there. I could go on a list a thousand different actions, all perfectly legal, but when taken to excess violate the essential rules of civilized behavior.
The key here is self control, wisdom, measured response, and a whole host of other characteristics that allow men to live in large communities and associations, often called nations. And it's imperative that the leaders of the these political organizations are even more careful, more circumspect, and judge actions under contemplation very seriously.
So, what happens if either the maturity level falls, or political aspirations are so urgent that caution is thrown to the wind in a mad pursuit for (political) vengeance? Well, that's when wars break out; the instigators need to learn a lesson that other people have a say as well, and if their rights are going to be trampled, there's gonna be pushback + blowback.
Just like Hillary had no evil intent and Horowitz will tell us tomorrow than none of the DS had bad intent. It’s really simple, for mind reading leftists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.